Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it

It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

The DoJ was investigating a leak about an Al-Qaeda affiliate's plot to hijack airline flights in Yemen. The operation had managed to embed a British informant on the inside who was feeding information to MI-6 and US Intelligence agencies on the plot. When the AP decided to publish their story, MI-6 and the CIA had the scramble to extract the inside informant and his family because they were in immediate danger. Plus, the AP story put an entire operation to take down an Al-Qaeda affiliate down into jeopardy, not to mention they made it a lot harder for the US to infiltrate the operation in the future.

So, the AP put lives in danger and compromised an active intelligence operation because they wanted a scoop.

I don't have a lot of qualms about getting a subpoena for the AP's telephone records to find where the leak is. This kind of shiat can lead to people getting executed.

jedihirsch:And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

FTA: Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.

Aarontology:It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

And no one is proposing taking that power away from the executive branch. They're just mad the blah guy is using it.

You know, funny you should say that because when all this broke I was laughing my ass off that Obama's basically pulled a page from Nixon's playbook. The GOP could never pull anything like that off anymore because most of their people are too goddamn dumb. Nixon was smarter than hell and pretty awesome. So is Obama.

Basically, Obama's just a way better Nixonion politician than any of the clowns currently in Republican positions of power. And I love it.

Even Nixon's happy that somebody can finally live up to his legacy of dirty tricks, massive foreign policy success and legislation that redefines America:

PreMortem:jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

FTA: Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.

Reading is hard, for you anyway.

Someone should just quote this every 4th or 5th post in this thread. There really isn't a whole lot else to be said.

SithLord:If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Uh, no, it's not "ok".

It is, however, legal. Just like it is legal for a judge to jail a reporter who won't reveal a source. The freedom of the press does not include the right to hide information from the authorities during an investigation of a criminal action.

Also, your memory of the Valerie Plame case is faulty. The Dems were in an uproar because the members of the Bush administration apparently leaked classified information to get revenge on an administration critic. It was clear almost right away that the more important question was who were the senior administration officials that were Novak's sources, yet the GOP seemed to want to focus on punishing Novak.

So, you are comparing the uproar over a criminal leak that outed a CIA agent, resulting in the convention of the top aide who leaked the info (Scooter Libby) and a presidential commutation of that aide's sentence with the entirely legal hunt for information to track down a leak.

No wonder you guys have a hard time understanding what is and is not a scandal.

SithLord:If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Dems are funny people. Buncha little Eichmann's.

It could be that Plame was outed because of political reasons related to the lie that Bush made about going to war, and the AP records were seized because they put a deep cover operative in danger.

The Irresponsible Captain:Aarontology: It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

^ This ^

When people get power, it's hard to make them give it up, and silly to expect they won't exercise it as well.

But 9/11, Terr'ists, Flag Pin, Freedom.

I clearly remember asking people if they would be happy when the patriot act was used by a democratic President.I was told there would be a permanent republican majority.

DarnoKonrad:whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker. The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism. So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not? What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I'm less interested in conservatives, and more interested in the "liberals" that were outraged about Plame being outed that now think this is some kind of outrage.

Doesn't make any farking sense.

your post makes no sense. Plame (and her entire CIA front company) were outed as political revenge for her husband exposing the lies that Bushco was peddling to the public about Saddam buying yellowcake from Niger. This didn't involve him leaking any classified information. The CIA sent him to check it out and he did. Then he reported his findings back to Bushco. They didn't like what he found out so they ran with their lies anyway. He wrote an op-ed exposing their lies. They retaliated by destroying his wife's career and endangering her and her associates and their contacts.

whitman00:A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker. The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism. So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not? What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I don't think anyone wishes the leaker gets off the hook. The government has a right and obligation to protect undercover operations in support of national security. It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

It's like asking if someone supports planes being blown up in midair if they don't support TSA strip searches at all airports... well, with a bit more hyperbole but you get it

PreMortem:jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

FTA: Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.

Reading is hard, for you anyway.

But that raises the issue what what news organizations can and cannot leak. The US government has done lots of legal but morally wrong things in the past. In the future should news organizations be prosecuted because they report on secret and legal but morally corrupt activities?

Lots of partisan herpderp, very little condemnation of an Executive encroaching on freedom of the press. It is not the duty of the media to keep government's secrets for them. Can we all just agree on that, or are we too busy Wharrgarbling about how any criticism of Obama is racism?

Zeppelininthesky:Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.

The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?

Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

Aarontology:It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

And, still, no call from the Media to repeal the Patriot Act. It's like they are incapable of seeing the connection.

Bush did it and the GOP didn't complain, so why should we care when Obama does the same?

Because the GOP are pretty terrible people and their outrage or nonoutrage shouldn't steer your decisions?

Yes, but they're usually Obama's biggest critics. Therefore, whenever anyone criticizes Obama I will associate them with the Neo-Cons of the last administration who were okay with Bush's abuses. Obviously those people are hypocrites, and I'm going to summarily dismiss any criticism of Obama that they make.

QED: Any criticism of this president is done by lackeys of the last one, and their opinions don't matter because they didn't speak about this kind of abuse then their guy did the same thing (and their guy is a major asshole).

And no suggestions of how this is a race to the bottom. It's a stupid argument for reasons that I will not say.

qorkfiend:This text is now purple: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets? here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

False dichotomy.

You're going to have to get a bit more specific than that, my friend.

Belief in a free press in no way carries the connotation that such a thing "confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens." More specifically, such a requirement is specifically untrue -- anyone can be a journalist, which is why the right is interpreted broadly. The press has no rights "above and beyond those afforded to other citizens." They do tend to have lawyers on retainer and ink contracts sold by the barrel, however.

The three big crises this week:(1) Getting legal subpoenas to determine is a person did something illegal, who happens to be an AP reporter;(2) The IRS investigating groups that identified themselves as political organizations to find out if they did something illegal by getting a big tax break from claiming that they were not political organizations; and(3) Getting an embassy in Benghazi blowed up a long, long time ago.

It seems to me that the rightwinger types are really getting desperate to find something to whine about. Is that really the best they can do?

Aarontology:SilentStrider: And no one is proposing taking that power away from the executive branch. They're just mad the blah guy is using it.

As a general rule, that's how you can tell how full of shiat people are.

When there's more time spent on assigning blame and rabble rousing instead of taking action to make sure it can't happen again, you can tell that the people upset about it aren't that upset.

This. I'm still disgusted by it, but I don't hear the media calling for the law's repeal. I don't hear Republicans screaming about how bad the law is, and that they're going to eliminate it soon. No, I hear a lot of crying about a legal (though morally repugnant to me) search warrant.

I want the law gone, heck the whole unPatriot Act should go. The expanded FISA should be erased from the books. I'm not just against it for this instance, it's morally repugnant to me, and has been for years.

Yes, all the way back when it was first passed. I was called a liebeul terrist simpathizer, because I thought the laws we were passing were idiotic and morally wrong.

The reporters sided with Bush on this issue. They sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. The same goes for Republicans who don't have the balls to move for it's change or removal.

Hobodeluxe:I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets? here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

skullkrusher:skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to subpoena all their trading records for the past 6 months"

I accidentally that post

More like "We are going to search every house that we believe the killer and his accomplices visited" or "We are going to subpoena records for trades executed by the people we suspect of insider trading".

Dansker:skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"

Or, instead of making spurious comparisons, we could say that it sounds like "We have probable cause to suspect that this government employee was passing sensitive, classified information to this journalist, so we are going to obtain some of their phone records and emails."No?

that would make sense if they obtained the phone records of a single journalist whom they suspected of having contact with the leaker.

MFAWG:skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

What, the judicial oversight and legal authorization based on probable cause?

holy crap, does the administration know how easily they can make this go away? You better tell them!

*shrug* Well, if you won't tell me what the questionable pursuit is, be that way!As an avid spectator I'm just sitting here across the Atlantic trying to enjoy a bit of US political circus, and I'm sorely disappointed by the lack of actual scandal after all this noise.

the issue is the breadth of the search. The issue is the secrecy behind the search. These are things that do not belong in a free society.Get the records to nail the leaking cocknose (leaking cocknose?) Do so in a way that protects the privacy of the innocent as much as possible

PreMortem:. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.

This rationale is dangerous. The DOJ is trying to criminalize investigative journalism. If a leaker brings up a fact to the reporter, and the reporter asks "I need to see evidence of your claim before I run a story on it, can you provide some proof?", the DOJ claims it can prosecute the reporter for inciting the leaker to reveal additional classified information.

Dansker:skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

What, the judicial oversight and legal authorization based on probable cause?

holy crap, does the administration know how easily they can make this go away? You better tell them!

*shrug* Well, if you won't tell me what the questionable pursuit is, be that way!As an avid spectator I'm just sitting here across the Atlantic trying to enjoy a bit of US political circus, and I'm sorely disappointed by the lack of actual scandal after all this noise.

the issue is the breadth of the search. The issue is the secrecy behind the search. These are things that do not belong in a free society.Get the records to nail the leaking cocknose (leaking cocknose?) Do so in a way that protects the privacy of the innocent as much as possible

Popcorn Johnny:Come on Fark, admit that your hero is capable of making a mistake.

DarnoKonrad:whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker. The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism. So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not? What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I'm less interested in conservatives, and more interested in the "liberals" that were outraged about Plame being outed that now think this is some kind of outrage.

Doesn't make any farking sense.

It's the difference between stabbing one of your own soldiers in the back for telling you something you don't want to hear...in private, no less...and blabbing about, say, classified troop deployments. To the enemy.

It's only a tough distinction to make if you're retarded. Or, you know...Republican.

David Gregory gave Peg Noonan a pretty good slapdown yesterday when she said these were the worst abuses she'd ever seen by pointing out that Pegs used to work for Nixon

Obama so far has not:

Authorized a clown like Gordon Liddy to bungle what should have been an easy break in to the opposition's HQ and the Psychologists office of a press leak. (Nixon didn't hire Liddy, Colson and Hunt did, Liddy's still a clown act though)

Hired Cubans to act as "foot soldiers"

Authorize "Union Thugs" to beat the snot out of Tea Tard protestors in DC

Go on a witch hunt for political purposes.

Expand a war he is trying to wind down

Nixon and Obama did:

Replace nearly all of their cabinet at the second term.

Inspire irrational hatred amongst the opposition ( to be honest though, Nixon's was kind of justified as he was very well known in politics)

Say they are going to end a war. And do exactly that.

Laugh at the opposition and proceed to do exactly what they want anyway.( I really like McGovern and the '72 race is great because McGovern was a man of principles who refused to compromise to win. Rmoney was a man of absolutely zero principles who would have compromised anything to win)

If I were Obama I would thank the right for comparing him to Nixon. Nixon, despite the dirty tricks, did many good things. Nixon was the last of the good Republicans.

PanicMan:To The Escape Zeppelin!: But that raises the issue what what news organizations can and cannot leak. The US government has done lots of legal but morally wrong things in the past. In the future should news organizations be prosecuted because they report on secret and legal but morally corrupt activities?

I believe the court cases related to Watergate and the Pentagon Papers settled that. The press can report on evidence of wrongdoing. They can't report on classified information just because.

But what qualifies wrong doing? In this case the government lied to the public to protect an ongoing investigation and the media published the leak showing that what they said was false. Is the government allowed to lie to protect information? Because where does that privilege end?

A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker. The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism. So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not? What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I for one, am shocked, shocked, I say, to find evidence that the POUSA is a crook.Some might say, just a paid actor following instructions from the same Real Boss as all the rest of the dickheads.I mean, just look at the trash carried for 50 years.

Bendal:Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it

Why do you assume that everyone critical of how the DoJ handled the AP investigation is conservative? The vast majority of both parties support the Patriot Act. Republicans in the House and Senate have largely defended the Administration's heavy-handed dealing with the AP. You are correct that the Patriot Act sucks. That's all that needs to be said, but this partisan excuse making isn't going to solve anything.

"Hi. I'm from the government. We just killed 8 kajillion brown people in Bumfarkistan. But they we're going to say that they were all terrorists, even the 4 year olds, so that means if you report on it we're going to throw your ass in jail. Kthxbai. FREEDOM!"

LowbrowDeluxe:PreMortem: jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

FTA: Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.

Reading is hard, for you anyway.

Someone should just quote this every 4th or 5th post in this thread. There really isn't a whole lot else to be said.

No, this should be.

Aarontology:It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.